We Keep Coding

Fermat primality test too slow - issues with big integers

This is my code for Fermat's primality test:
def fermat(n):
counter = 0
prime = False
if n >= 40:
upper_bound = 40
else:
upper_bound = n - 1
for a in range(2, upper_bound + 1):
print(a)
if pow_mod(a, n - 1, n) == 1:
counter += 1
if counter == n - 2 and upper_bound == n - 1 or counter == 39 and upper_bound == 40:
prime = True
return prime
pow_mod function calculates a^b mod n with repeated multiplication, applying mod n each time, like this:
def pow_mod(a, b, n):
result = 1
for i in range(b):
result = result * a % n
return result
It works for relatively small primes. However, if I run it for a large prime such as 67280421310721, it doesn't produce a result in a desirable amount of time. Is it due to the large numbers? How do I fix this?

It's because your pow_mod is terribly slow. Use a fast algorithm or just use Python's built-in pow function.
Btw, if I understand your rather convoluted code correctly, you're simply checking whether all tests were successful. Which can be written more clearly:
def fermat(n):
upper_bound = 40 if n >= 40 else n - 1
return all(pow(a, n - 1, n) == 1
for a in range(2, upper_bound + 1))

What's the most efficient way to find Wilson Prime number using python?

I have written a code of Wilson prime numbers and my code is working for most of the numbers but it's giving OverflowError: int too large to convert to float for very large numbers. Is there any way to write Wilson prime number code for very large numbers.
The main problem is for checking Wilson prime Wilson primes it should satisfy the following condition. Where P represents a prime number.
Then ((P-1)! + 1) / (P * P) should give a whole number.
And as you can see factorials are involved in this procedure, so for very large numbers it's pretty difficult.
My Code :
def am_i_wilson(n):
import math
n1 = math.sqrt(n)
n1 = math.ceil(n1)
c = 0
def fact(n):
num = 1
for i in range(2,n+1):
num = num*i
return num
if n <= 1:
return False
for i in range(2, n1 + 1):
if n%i == 0:
c+ = 1
if c != 0:
return False
x = (fact(n-1)+1)/((n**2)*1.0)
return x.is_integer()
In my code, I am returning True if the number is Wilson Prime else False. Here n is the number to check if it's Wilson prime or not.

I think this is the most efficient way
import math
def am_i_wilson(num):
if num < 2 or not all(n % i for i in range(2, num)):
return False
return (math.factorial(num - 1) + 1) % (num ** 2) == 0
or you can try this too
import math
def am_i_wilson(n):
if n <= 2:
return False
fact=math.factorial(n-1)
#this conditional checks that the number is prime or not
#this condition is called wilson theorem in number theory
if (fact+1)%n==0:
x = (fact+1)%(n**2)
if x==0:
return True
else:
return False
else:
return False

if anyone has any better method then please answer it.
Your program primarily relies on testing for primes and computing factorials. You separate out the factorial logic but embed an inefficient prime test -- it keeps testing remainders after it knows the number isn't prime! I would separate both out so that they can be tested and optimized independently of the Wilson prime test itself:
def factorial(n):
number = 1
for i in range(2, n + 1):
number *= i
return number
def am_i_prime(n):
if n < 2:
return False
if n % 2 == 0:
return n == 2
for divisor in range(3, int(n ** 0.5) + 1, 2):
if n % divisor == 0:
return False
return True
def am_i_wilson(n):
return am_i_prime(n) and (factorial(n - 1) + 1) % n ** 2 == 0
A more efficient approach, given a fixed target to test up to, would be to implement a prime sieve and for each prime encountered, while you're computing the sieve, test if it's a Wilson prime.

I've been experimenting with prime sieves recently. I did a quick modification (i.e. hack) to one of them written by Robert William Hanks and came up with this. Output first:
$ ./wilson_primes.py 10000
[5, 13, 563]
...so I suspect the Wikipedia article about Wilson primes is correct ;-)
import sys
def fact(n):
num = 1
for i in range(2, n+1):
num *= i
return num
def is_wilson(n):
return (fact(n-1)+1) % n**2 == 0
def rwh_primes1(n):
""" Returns a list of primes < n """
sieve = [True] * (n/2)
for i in range(3,int(n**0.5)+1,2):
if sieve[i/2]:
sieve[i*i/2::i] = [False] * ((n-i*i-1)/(2*i)+1)
# return [2] + [2*i+1 for i in xrange(1,n/2) if sieve[i]]
for i in range(1,n/2):
if sieve[i]:
p = 2*i + 1 # convert index to normal prime
if is_wilson(p): #
yield p #
if len(sys.argv) > 1:
N = int(float(sys.argv[1]))
else:
N = 10000 # default: 1e4 10,000
print [p for p in rwh_primes1(N)]
First I tried just the fact() function and was pleasantly surprised to see it can produce huge results. But it is very slow compared to the original prime sieve. Perhaps it could be made to run faster by remembering the last factorial computed and re-use that to skip part of next factorial computation.
EDIT
I changed fact() to remember its last result, as follows:
last_fact = 1
last_n = 1
def fact2(n):
global last_fact, last_n
num = last_fact
for i in range(last_n+1, n+1):
num *= i
last_n = n
last_fact = num
return num
def is_wilson(n):
return (fact2(n-1)+1) % n**2 == 0
That did speed it up quite a bit. cProfile shows that is_wilson() is now the bottleneck. I can't think of an easy way to make it faster.

Computing Eulers Totient Function

I am trying to find an efficient way to compute Euler's totient function.
What is wrong with this code? It doesn't seem to be working.
def isPrime(a):
return not ( a < 2 or any(a % i == 0 for i in range(2, int(a ** 0.5) + 1)))
def phi(n):
y = 1
for i in range(2,n+1):
if isPrime(i) is True and n % i == 0 is True:
y = y * (1 - 1/i)
else:
continue
return int(y)

Here's a much faster, working way, based on this description on Wikipedia:
Thus if n is a positive integer, then φ(n) is the number of integers k in the range 1 ≤ k ≤ n for which gcd(n, k) = 1.
I'm not saying this is the fastest or cleanest, but it works.
from math import gcd
def phi(n):
amount = 0
for k in range(1, n + 1):
if gcd(n, k) == 1:
amount += 1
return amount

You have three different problems...
y needs to be equal to n as initial value, not 1
As some have mentioned in the comments, don't use integer division
n % i == 0 is True isn't doing what you think because of Python chaining the comparisons! Even if n % i equals 0 then 0 == 0 is True BUT 0 is True is False! Use parens or just get rid of comparing to True since that isn't necessary anyway.
Fixing those problems,
def phi(n):
y = n
for i in range(2,n+1):
if isPrime(i) and n % i == 0:
y *= 1 - 1.0/i
return int(y)

Calculating gcd for every pair in range is not efficient and does not scales. You don't need to iterate throught all the range, if n is not a prime you can check for prime factors up to its square root, refer to https://stackoverflow.com/a/5811176/3393095.
We must then update phi for every prime by phi = phi*(1 - 1/prime).
def totatives(n):
phi = int(n > 1 and n)
for p in range(2, int(n ** .5) + 1):
if not n % p:
phi -= phi // p
while not n % p:
n //= p
#if n is > 1 it means it is prime
if n > 1: phi -= phi // n
return phi

I'm working on a cryptographic library in python and this is what i'm using. gcd() is Euclid's method for calculating greatest common divisor, and phi() is the totient function.
def gcd(a, b):
while b:
a, b=b, a%b
return a
def phi(a):
b=a-1
c=0
while b:
if not gcd(a,b)-1:
c+=1
b-=1
return c

Most implementations mentioned by other users rely on calling a gcd() or isPrime() function. In the case you are going to use the phi() function many times, it pays of to calculated these values before hand. A way of doing this is by using a so called sieve algorithm.
https://stackoverflow.com/a/18997575/7217653 This answer on stackoverflow provides us with a fast way of finding all primes below a given number.
Oke, now we can replace isPrime() with a search in our array.
Now the actual phi function:
Wikipedia gives us a clear example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_totient_function#Example
phi(36) = phi(2^2 * 3^2) = 36 * (1- 1/2) * (1- 1/3) = 30 * 1/2 * 2/3 = 12
In words, this says that the distinct prime factors of 36 are 2 and 3; half of the thirty-six integers from 1 to 36 are divisible by 2, leaving eighteen; a third of those are divisible by 3, leaving twelve numbers that are coprime to 36. And indeed there are twelve positive integers that are coprime with 36 and lower than 36: 1, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 25, 29, 31, and 35.
TL;DR
With other words: We have to find all the prime factors of our number and then multiply these prime factors together using foreach prime_factor: n *= 1 - 1/prime_factor.
import math
MAX = 10**5
# CREDIT TO https://stackoverflow.com/a/18997575/7217653
def sieve_for_primes_to(n):
size = n//2
sieve = [1]*size
limit = int(n**0.5)
for i in range(1,limit):
if sieve[i]:
val = 2*i+1
tmp = ((size-1) - i)//val
sieve[i+val::val] = [0]*tmp
return [2] + [i*2+1 for i, v in enumerate(sieve) if v and i>0]
PRIMES = sieve_for_primes_to(MAX)
print("Primes generated")
def phi(n):
original_n = n
prime_factors = []
prime_index = 0
while n > 1: # As long as there are more factors to be found
p = PRIMES[prime_index]
if (n % p == 0): # is this prime a factor?
prime_factors.append(p)
while math.ceil(n / p) == math.floor(n / p): # as long as we can devide our current number by this factor and it gives back a integer remove it
n = n // p
prime_index += 1
for v in prime_factors: # Now we have the prime factors, we do the same calculation as wikipedia
original_n *= 1 - (1/v)
return int(original_n)
print(phi(36)) # = phi(2**2 * 3**2) = 36 * (1- 1/2) * (1- 1/3) = 36 * 1/2 * 2/3 = 12

It looks like you're trying to use Euler's product formula, but you're not calculating the number of primes which divide a. You're calculating the number of elements relatively prime to a.
In addition, since 1 and i are both integers, so is the division, in this case you always get 0.

With regards to efficiency, I haven't noticed anyone mention that gcd(k,n)=gcd(n-k,n). Using this fact can save roughly half the work needed for the methods involving the use of the gcd. Just start the count with 2 (because 1/n and (n-1)/k will always be irreducible) and add 2 each time the gcd is one.

Here is a shorter implementation of orlp's answer.
from math import gcd
def phi(n): return sum([gcd(n, k)==1 for k in range(1, n+1)])
As others have already mentioned it leaves room for performance optimization.

Actually to calculate phi(any number say n)
We use the Formula
where p are the prime factors of n.
So, you have few mistakes in your code:
1.y should be equal to n
2. For 1/i actually 1 and i both are integers so their evaluation will also be an integer,thus it will lead to wrong results.
Here is the code with required corrections.
def phi(n):
y = n
for i in range(2,n+1):
if isPrime(i) and n % i == 0 :
y -= y/i
else:
continue
return int(y)

Optimise the solution to Project Euler 12 (Python)

I have the following code for Project Euler Problem 12. However, it takes a very long time to execute. Does anyone have any suggestions for speeding it up?
n = input("Enter number: ")
def genfact(n):
t = []
for i in xrange(1, n+1):
if n%i == 0:
t.append(i)
return t
print "Numbers of divisors: ", len(genfact(n))
print
m = input("Enter the number of triangle numbers to check: ")
print
for i in xrange (2, m+2):
a = sum(xrange(i))
b = len(genfact(a))
if b > 500:
print a
For n, I enter an arbitrary number such as 6 just to check whether it indeed returns the length of the list of the number of factors.
For m, I enter entered 80 000 000
It works relatively quickly for small numbers. If I enter b > 50 ; it returns 28 for a, which is correct.

My answer here isn't pretty or elegant, it is still brute force. But, it simplifies the problem space a little and terminates successfully in less than 10 seconds.
Getting factors of n:
Like #usethedeathstar mentioned, it is possible to test for factors only up to n/2. However, we can do better by testing only up to the square root of n:
let n = 36
=> factors(n) : (1x36, 2x18, 3x12, 4x9, 6x6, 9x4, 12x3, 18x2, 36x1)
As you can see, it loops around after 6 (the square root of 36). We also don't need to explicitly return the factors, just find out how many there are... so just count them off with a generator inside of sum():
import math
def get_factors(n):
return sum(2 for i in range(1, round(math.sqrt(n)+1)) if not n % i)
Testing the triangular numbers
I have used a generator function to yield the triangular numbers:
def generate_triangles(limit):
l = 1
while l <= limit:
yield sum(range(l + 1))
l += 1
And finally, start testing:
def test_triangles():
triangles = generate_triangles(100000)
for i in triangles:
if get_factors(i) > 499:
return i
Running this with the profiler, it completes in less than 10 seconds:
$ python3 -m cProfile euler12.py
361986 function calls in 8.006 seconds
The BIGGEST time saving here is get_factors(n) testing only up to the square root of n - this makes it heeeaps quicker and you save heaps of memory overhead by not generating a list of factors.
As I said, it still isn't pretty - I am sure there are more elegant solutions. But, it fits the bill of being faster :)

I got my answer to run in 1.8 seconds with Python.
import time
from math import sqrt
def count_divisors(n):
d = {}
count = 1
while n % 2 == 0:
n = n / 2
try:
d[2] += 1
except KeyError:
d[2] = 1
for i in range(3, int(sqrt(n+1)), 2):
while n % i == 0 and i != n:
n = n / i
try:
d[i] += 1
except KeyError:
d[i] = 1
d[n] = 1
for _,v in d.items():
count = count * (v + 1)
return count
def tri_number(num):
next = 1 + int(sqrt(1+(8 * num)))
return num + (next/2)
def main():
i = 1
while count_divisors(i) < 500:
i = tri_number(i)
return i
start = time.time()
answer = main()
elapsed = (time.time() - start)
print("result %s returned in %s seconds." % (answer, elapsed))
Here is the output showing the timedelta and correct answer:
$ python ./project012.py
result 76576500 returned in 1.82238006592 seconds.
Factoring
For counting the divisors, I start by initializing an empty dictionary and a counter. For each factor found, I create key of d[factor] with value of 1 if it does not exist, otherwise, I increment the value d[factor].
For example, if we counted the factors 100, we would see d = {25: 1, 2: 2}
The first while loop, I factor out all 2's, dividing n by 2 each time. Next, I begin factoring at 3, skipping two each time (since we factored all even numbers already), and stopping once I get to the square root of n+1.
We stop at the square_root of n because if there's a pair of factors with one of the numbers bigger than square_root of n, the other of the pair has to be less than 10. If the smaller one doesn't exist, there is no matching larger factor.
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1343171/why-only-square-root-approach-to-check-number-is-prime
while n % 2 == 0:
n = n / 2
try:
d[2] += 1
except KeyError:
d[2] = 1
for i in range(3, int(sqrt(n+1)), 2):
while n % i == 0 and i != n:
n = n / i
try:
d[i] += 1
except KeyError:
d[i] = 1
d[n] = 1
Now that I have gotten each factor, and added it to the dictionary, we have to add the last factor (which is just n).
Counting Divisors
Now that the dictionary is complete, we loop through each of the items, and apply the following formula: d(n)=(a+1)(b+1)(c+1)...
https://www.wikihow.com/Determine-the-Number-of-Divisors-of-an-Integer
All this formula means is taking all of the counts of each factor, adding 1, then multiplying them together. Take 100 for example, which has factors 25, 2, and 2. We would calculate d(n)=(a+1)(b+1) = (1+1)(2+1) = (2)(3) = 6 total divisors
for _,v in d.items():
count = count * (v + 1)
return count
Calculate Triangle Numbers
Now, taking a look at tri_number(), you can see that I opted to calculate the next triangle number in a sequence without manually adding each whole number together (saving me millions of operations). Instead I used T(n) = n (n+1) / 2
http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/runsums/triNbProof.html
We are providing a whole number to the function as an argument, so we need to solve for n, which is going to be the whole number to add next. Once we have the next number (n), we simply add that single number to num and return
S=n(n+1)2
S=n2+n2
2S=n2+n
n2+n−2S=0
At this point, we use the quadratic formula for : ax2+bx+c=0.
n=−b±√b2−4ac / 2a
n=−1±√1−4(1)(−2S) / 2
n=−1±√1+8S / 2
https://socratic.org/questions/how-do-you-solve-for-n-in-s-n-n-1-2
So all tri_number() does is evaluate n=1+√1+8S / 2 (we ignore the negative equation here). The answer that is returned is the next triangle number in the sequence.
def tri_number(num):
next = 1 + int(sqrt(1+(8 * num)))
return num + (next/2)
Main Loop
Finally, we can look at main(). We start at whole number 1. We count the divisor of 1. If it is less than 500, we get the next triangle number, then try again and again until we get a number with > 500 divisors.
def main():
i = 1
while count_divisors(i) < 500:
i = tri_number(i)
return i
I am sure there are additional ways to optimize but I am not smart enough to understand those ways. If you find any better ways to optimize python, let me know! I originally solved project 12 in Golang, and that run in 25 milliseconds!
$ go run project012.go
76576500
2018/07/12 01:56:31 TIME: main() took 23.581558ms

one of the hints i can give is
def genfact(n):
t = []
for i in xrange(1, n+1):
if n%i == 0:
t.append(i)
return t
change that to
def genfact(n):
t=[]
for i in xrange(1,numpy.sqrt(n)+1):
if(n%i==0):
t.append(i)
t.apend(n/i)
since if a is a divisor than so is b=n/a, since a*b=a*n/b=n, That should help a part already (not sure if in your case a square is possible, but if so, add another case to exclude adding the same number twice)
You could devise a recursive thing too, (like if it is something like for 28, you get 1,28,2,14 and at the moment you are at knowing 14, you put in something to actually remember the divisors of 14 (memoize), than check if they are alraedy in the list, and if not, add them to the list, together with 28/d for each of the divisors of 14, and at the end just take out the duplicates
If you think my first answer is still not fast enough, ask for more, and i will check how it would be done to solve it faster with some more tricks (could probably make use of erastothenes sieve or so too, and some other tricks could be thought up as well if you would wish to really blow up the problem to huge proportions, like to check the first one with over 10k divisors or so)

while True:
c=0
n=1
m=1
for i in range(1,n+1):
if n%i==0:
c=c+1
m=m+1
n=m*(m+1)/2
if c>500:
break
print n

this is not my code but it is so optimized.
source: http://code.jasonbhill.com/sage/project-euler-problem-12/
import time
def num_divisors(n):
if n % 2 == 0: n = n / 2
divisors = 1
count = 0
while n % 2 == 0:
count += 1
n = n / 2
divisors = divisors * (count + 1)
p = 3
while n != 1:
count = 0
while n % p == 0:
count += 1
n = n / p
divisors = divisors * (count + 1)
p += 2
return divisors
def find_triangular_index(factor_limit):
n = 1
lnum, rnum = num_divisors(n), num_divisors(n + 1)
while lnum * rnum < 500:
n += 1
lnum, rnum = rnum, num_divisors(n + 1)
return n
start = time.time()
index = find_triangular_index(500)
triangle = (index * (index + 1)) / 2
elapsed = (time.time() - start)
print("result %s returned in %s seconds." % (triangle, elapsed))

How can I improve my code for euler 14?

I solved Euler problem 14 but the program I used is very slow. I had a look at what the others did and they all came up with elegant solutions. I tried to understand their code without much success.
Here is my code (the function to determine the length of the Collatz chain
def collatz(n):
a=1
while n!=1:
if n%2==0:
n=n/2
else:
n=3*n+1
a+=1
return a
Then I used brute force. It is slow and I know it is weak. Could someone tell me why my code is weak and how I can improve my code in plain English.
Bear in mind that I am a beginner, my programming skills are basic.

Rather than computing every possible chain from the start to the end, you can keep a cache of chain starts and their resulting length. For example, for the chain
13 40 20 10 5 16 8 4 2 1
you could remember the following:
The Collatz chain that starts with 13 has length 10
The Collatz chain that starts with 40 has length 9
The Collatz chain starting with 20 has length 8
... and so on.
We can then use this saved information to stop computing a chain as soon as we encounter a number which is already in our cache.
Implementation
Use dictionaries in Python to associate starting numbers with their chain length:
chain_sizes = {}
chain_sizes[13] = 10
chain_sizes[40] = 9
chain_sizes[40] # => 9
20 in chain_sizes # => False
Now you just have to adapt your algorithm to make use of this dictionary (filling it with values as well as looking up intermediate numbers).
By the way, this can be expressed very nicely using recursion. The chain sizes that can occur here will not overflow the stack :)

Briefly, because my English is horrible ;-)
Forall n >= 1, C(n) = n/2 if n even,
3*n + 1 if n odd
It is possible to calculate several consecutive iterates at once.
kth iterate of a number ending in k 0 bits:
C^k(a*2^k) = a
(2k)th iterate of a number ending in k 1 bits:
C^(2k)(a*2^k + 2^k - 1) = a*3^k + 3^k - 1 = (a + 1)*3^k - 1
Cf. formula on Wikipédia article (in French); see also my website (in French), and Module tnp1 in my Python package DSPython.
Combine the following code with the technique of memoization explained by Niklas B :
#!/usr/bin/env python
# -*- coding: latin-1 -*-
from __future__ import division # Python 3 style in Python 2
from __future__ import print_function # Python 3 style in Python 2
def C(n):
"""Pre: n: int >= 1
Result: int >= 1"""
return (n//2 if n%2 == 0
else n*3 + 1)
def Ck(n, k):
"""Pre: n: int >= 1
k: int >= 0
Result: int >= 1"""
while k > 0:
while (n%2 == 0) and k: # n even
n //= 2
k -= 1
if (n == 1) and k:
n = 4
k -= 1
else:
nb = 0
while (n > 1) and n%2 and (k > 1): # n odd != 1
n //= 2
nb += 1
k -= 2
if n%2 and (k == 1):
n = (n + 1)*(3**(nb + 1)) - 2
k -= 1
elif nb:
n = (n + 1)*(3**nb) - 1
return n
def C_length(n):
"""Pre: n: int >= 1
Result: int >= 1"""
l = 1
while n > 1:
while (n > 1) and (n%2 == 0): # n even
n //= 2
l += 1
nb = 0
while (n > 1) and n%2: # n odd != 1
n //= 2
nb += 1
l += 2
if nb:
n = (n + 1)*(3**nb) - 1
return l
if __name__ == '__main__':
for n in range(1, 51):
print(n, ': length =', C_length(n))